Politics, Politics, Everywhere

One of the things I hate most about modern politics is that it is omnipresent- nothing is free from politics, and I blame a large part of that on the activist liberals who make their home in the Democratic party. My latest example is a real corker.

The National Communication Association, whose yearly conferences I have all but abandoned because my desire to suffer through scholarly endeavors such as The Most Popular Fag and Hag in TV Land: Queer Kinship and Camp in ‘Will and Grace’ has been sated throughout the years, does have one useful feature- a listserv.

The listerv generally holds announcements, position announcements, and general queries. A very useful feature, and one of the few real benefits of NCA (other than their journal publication). However, also in th listerv is a running commentary on issues of the day, and now the leftist twerps want to once again use an academic organization to pursue their political beliefs.

This time, the morons want the NCA to ‘boycott’ any city which happens to be in a state which does not offer marriage rights to homosexuals. Forget the details, what is supremely offensive is that they just wish to use the clout of all the members to make a political statement that will please a distinct minority of the membership.

One would think that rather than boycotting a city, the National Communication Association would instead strive to hold the conference in a res dtate that recently banned the practice. Then when in the city, we could hold forums, debates, and engage in- CONSTRUCTIVE COMMUNICATION.

Not so for the small-minded largely tenured bullies that make up the professionally sensitive and always aggrieve advocacy wing of the NCA. That just makes too much god damned sense, and they might have to hear ideas that scare them. In other words- opposing ideas.

As it is, I have sent numerous letters to the editor, one Jennifer Peltak, and she has never seen fit to include my comments in the listserv, for whatever reason.






15 replies
  1. 1
    Alexander the Grate says:

    Hmmm. In light of the following:”I blame a large part of that on the activist liberals,” or “leftist twerps,” or “the morons,” or “(f)orget the details, what is supremely offensive,” or “small-minded largely tenured bullies,” I simply can’t imagine Jennifer not wanting to print any of your correspondence. Way to keep the conversation constructive, Mr. It’s Always The Left’s Fault.

    Despite your persistant belief, John, that it is exclusively the left that trades in victimization (just as you repeatedly proclaimed, presumably with a straight face, that Kerry always lied & Bush never, that Kerry was the war scoundrel & Bush the honorable serviceman), I would ask that you at least try to take a serious look at the supreme extent to which the modern right presents itself as–indeed, is virtually founded upon the notion of–being victimized by some amorphous, all-powerful (heh!) “elite,” from which a blue-blood, well-educated, northeastern slacker and moron is the vanguard to protect you.

    Hell, this has had to be the whiniest, most paranoid and graceless national electoral victory in the history of the U.S. Oooh, don’t investigate voting irregularities, for that will surely threaten the union; or, nooo, don’t criticize the president in any way, because the electorate has spoken so decisively. Jesus, what a bunch of pussies the Right has become.

  2. 2

    Oooh, don’t investigate voting irregularities, for that will surely threaten the union

    No. Nono. Oooh, don’t investigate claims of voting irregularities that have already been extensively and repeatedly exposed to be utterly without factual basis.

  3. 3
    Terry says:

    “Hell, this has had to be the whiniest, most paranoid and graceless national electoral victory in the history of the U.S.”

    Substitute the word “DEFEAT” for the word “victory,” and perhaps Alexander the Grunt has a point.

  4. 4

    John, your suggestion of the better way being to hold meaningful forums, with actual debate, in a red state is excellent. Your complaint is understandable, too. Yet one thing about it bothers me.

    Exactly why are these people trying to leverage whatever clout the organization has to further their cause “activist liberals” and “leftist twerps”? I can’t say for sure they’re not, but can you say for sure they are? Or, is anyone you disagree with, ipso facto, a liberal?

    Part of the reason I ask this is because I don’t see an activist groundswell among liberals, trying to foist gay marriage on an unwilling country. A general, abiding belief in more fairness, yes. Widespread support for live and let live, sure. But shoving gay marriage down everyone’s throat? No.

    Do some liberals support gay marriage? Yes. Is that a defining feature of liberals? No.

    Do some conservatives think the KKK was a positive force in America and long for the return of Jim Crow? Yes. Is that a defining feature of conservatism? No.

    Comprende?

  5. 5
    Kimmitt says:

    No. Nono. Oooh, don’t investigate claims of voting irregularities that have already been extensively and repeatedly exposed to be utterly without factual basis.

    No. Do investigate them, put them totally to bed, and kill the meme, if it’s that corrosive and ill-founded.

  6. 6

    If the premises upon which an accusation of impropriety was made have been shown to be utterly worthless, on what basis do you investigate a specific incident further? Without, you know, doing a detailed investigation into every single voting precinct in the country?

  7. 7
    Kimmitt says:

    If the premises upon which an accusation of impropriety was made have been shown to be utterly worthless, on what basis do you investigate a specific incident further?

    On the basis that a lot of people don’t share your opinion, so you have to actually convince them. Legitimacy doesn’t come when the winners of elections accept the outcome. It comes when the losers do.

  8. 8

    On the basis that a lot of people don’t share your opinion, so you have to actually convince them.

    Great. A great many people think that the Earth is only 6000 or so years old. It’s your job to convince them otherwise.

    Legitimacy doesn’t come when the winners of elections accept the outcome. It comes when the losers do.

    Sorry. When the losers are too stupid to accept that which is right there for them to get, the game is over. Legitimacy in the eyes of the losers who refuse to see reality, I couldn’t care much less for.

  9. 9
    Chris Arndt says:

    If the losers had authority they wouldn’t be the losers.

    If the losers had to accept defeat before they are actually defeated then I suppose so many of the games played in school never ended, considering how the kids never accepted their actual defeat.

  10. 10
    Kimmitt says:

    When the losers are too stupid to accept that which is right there for them to get, the game is over.

    And they call us blue-staters elitist.

  11. 11

    So, you’re saying that ignoring evidence when it contradicts one’s beliefs isn’t stupid? Fine. Suggest an alternative descriptor.

    And they call us blue-staters elitist.

    Odd this, coming from you. It seems I remember you were the one, a couple of months ago, making disparaging and ultimately unsubstantiated generalizations about Republicans. And here you are arguing against a generalization I haven’t made. I haven’t said Democrats are stupid in general. Just, you know, the ones behaving stupidly. If you’re offended in finding a well-fitting shoe here, that’s not my problem. If not, well, your outrage is a little baffling.

  12. 12
    Alexander the Grate says:

    Slarti:

    What the hell are you talking about: “If the premises upon which an accusation of impropriety was made have been shown to be utterly worthless…”? What “premises”? And when did this comprehensive refutation take place?

    I acknowledge that down in your neck of the woods the press has convincingly shown that registered Democrats have and will vote Republican, and I accept these findings, however informal they may be. So I’m hardly ignoring evidence; I just want to see it in all the disputed areas. That hasn’t happened yet.

    It’s not about “game over” or “legitimacy”–although I think your wrong that legitimacy is somehow conferred by electoral victor, just ask the western Ukrainians–nor about reviewing every precinct in the country, which no one but you has suggested. As it stands, our election was legitimate, but it was not flawless. That’s what these recounts and investigations are meant to highlight, with an eye to correcting for the next time. If nothing else, future standardization and paper trails would be well worth the effort.

    After all, it is we Democrats who stand to suffer politically if no evidence of malfeasance is found. It’s a risk we’re willing to take, and it’s got nothing to do with intelligence, but rather integrity.

    Methinks thou dost protest too much, my man, and too prematurely.

  13. 13

    What “premises”? And when did this comprehensive refutation take place?

    Name a point of dispute, and we can discuss in detail how it’s been debunked.

    As it stands, our election was legitimate, but it was not flawless.

    There’s no such thing as flawless, nor was that my claim. Polling errors are something we’re going to always have with us to some degree or other. Some inroads have been made to the end of reducing balloting errors, but certainly we’re nowhere near anything resembling an end state. This is a valid point, but not in this context (which, lest we forget, was rigging of elections).

    it’s got nothing to do with intelligence, but rather integrity.

    Alleging impropriety without the least bit of evidence is just asking to get publicly excoriated. If you’re willing to take that risk, you’re going to have to live with the consequences. So quitcherbellyachin.

    Methinks thou dost protest too much, my man, and too prematurely.

    Exactly the point I was making about some idiots making unsubstantiated claims that cheating got Bush into the White House. Since you’ve already stated that it was a legitimate election, I have no idea what you’re doing arguing this position.

  14. 14
    Kimmitt says:

    Alleging impropriety without the least bit of evidence is just asking to get publicly excoriated.

    There are a number of lawsuits claiming quite the opposite; even if you don’t find the lawsuits individually meritorious, the mere existence of such suits is “the least bit of evidence.”

    You’re putting yourself pretty far on a limb here. When and if there are discoveries of fraud, gross incompetence, or malfeasance, is your appetite for crow going to be nearly as big as your appetite for haughtiness?

  15. 15

    the mere existence of such suits is “the least bit of evidence.”

    Heh. Hehe. So, the fact that a lawsuit’s been filed, that somehow means that there’s merit to it? Might as well just find for the plaintiff.

    When and if there are discoveries of fraud, gross incompetence, or malfeasance, is your appetite for crow going to be nearly as big as your appetite for haughtiness?

    No crow would be indicated. When and if there are discoveries of fraud, etc is something that’s going to happen sometime in the future. Right now, you’ve got zilch.

    Of course I’m not saying there’s no fraud. That would be unrealistic. What I’m saying is, there’s no evidence at present that fraud gained Bush the White House. On either occasion, Kimmitt.

    Also worth noting is that the Democrat’s seeming thirst for uncovering fraud doesn’t have them looking much at their own rank and file. Just accusing the opponents, and saying that those lousy Republicans cheated themselves into another presidency. And that, my friends, is stupid.

Comments are closed.